D.Utah: Drug dog arriving within 7 minutes was reasonable and part of the initial stop

Defendant’s phone was pinged by Utah court order, but it left the state and was spot checked when out-of-state. “Further, the ping data that ultimately led to the traffic stop at issue was collected while phone 3145 was in Utah. Defendant has not provided, nor can the Court find any case law to support that all data collected from the ping warrant must be excluded if the scope of the warrant was exceeded at any point.” The traffic stop was justified, and the dog showed up within seven minutes, a reasonable time. United States v. Perez-Espinoza, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80709 (D. Utah May 1, 2024).*

“The information containing Officer Lehr’s prior experience with defendant, in conjunction with contemporary surveillance and Lehr’s training and experience, could provide the Circuit Court Judge with a sufficient information to establish probable cause to believe there was on-going drug activity in the house where defendant stated he resided. Because of the deference to be accorded the judge who issued the warrant, this Court cannot find the application was so lacking in detail that evidence found at the house in which defendant resided should be suppressed.” Thus, the good faith exception applies, too. United States v. Smith, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80438 (C.D. Ill. Apr. 4, 2024), adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79500 (C.D. Ill. Apr. 30, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.